Legal luminary, Aare Afe Babalola has dragged embattled human rights lawyer, Mr. Dele Farotimi to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over allegations contained in his book, “Nigeria and its criminal justice system.”
In the petition 90-page petition sighted by Theliberationnews and dated 6th December, 2024, Mr. Ola Faro noted that he was writing both in his personal capacity “and for and on behalf of the law firm of Afe Babalola & Co.”
The LPDC is the regulatory body with disciplinary oversight over Nigerian lawyers. The body has the mandate to order that the name of a legal practitioner be struck off the roll of lawyers kept at the Supreme Court. Such decision is however subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The petition is titled “PETITION AGAINST TOMILOLA TITUS FAROTIMI (ALSO KNOWN AS DELE FAROTIMI ESQ), A NIGERIAN LAWYER CALLED TO THE NIGERIAN BAR WITH HIS NAME ON THE ROLL OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS KEPT BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR VIOLATION OF THE EXTANT RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES 1, 15(1), 15(2B), 15(3A), 15(3G), 15(3I), 15(3J),26(1), 27(1), 30, 31(1), (2) and (4) OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 2023 BY BRINGING THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY IN NIGERIA INTO DISREPUTE WITH HIS UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST EMINENT JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA, JUDGES OF HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE, AARE AFE BABALOLA SAN, OLU DARAMOLA SAN, OLA FARO ESQ, AND THE ENTIRE CHAMBERS OF AFE BABALOLA & CO IN HIS BOOK TITLED ‘NIGERIA AND ITS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.’ “
The petition was received by the LPDC on Thursday and assigned with the case number BB/LPDC/1571/2024.
The petitioners urged the disciplinary committee to bar Farotimi from practising law, saying: “We respectfully urge the Committee to strike out the name Tomilola Titus Farotimi (also known as Dele Farotimi Esq) from the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria for violation of the sacred provisions of RULES 1, 15(1), 15(2B), 15(3A), 15(3G), 15(3I), 15(3J),26(1), 27(1), 30, 31(1), (2) and (4) OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 2023.”
The petitioners outlined sundry infractions allegedly committed by Farotimi in his trending book.
According to the petitioners, Farotimi “engaged in conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner by making false accusations against the Supreme Court and the legal profession.”
The petitioners also stated that Farotimi “Participated in conduct that he believes to be unlawful by bribing judicial officers and having unlawful access to a judicial officer.
“Joined his clients in committing misconduct and breach of law with reference to to judicial officers by having unlawful access to a judicial officer.
“Gave service to his client which he knows is capable of causing breach of law and disrespect and corrupting a judicial officer.
“Knowingly made false statement of law and facts in respect to a case already decided by the Supreme Court.
“Assisted his clients in a conduct that he knows to be illegal and fraudulent.
“Knowingly engaged in illegal conduct in the cause of his practice as a legal practitioner.
“Treated his fellow lawyers without respect, fairness, consideration and dignity, allowing ill feeling between opposing clients to influence his conduct and demeanor by distorting the facts of a case in the cause of his practice as a legal practitioner.
“Failed to observe good faith and fairness in dealing with other lawyers in respect to a case already decided by the Supreme Court.
“Conducted himself in a manner that obstructed, delayed and adversely affected the administration of justice by taking steps to frustrate a decision of the Supreme Court for his personal benefit and benefit of his client who lost at the Supreme Court.
“Treated the court, particularly the Supreme Court without respect, dignity and honour by using uncouth, unprofessional, undignified and offensive language against the Supreme Court and the justices of the Supreme Court.
“Made defamatory statements against judicial officers rather than making a complaint to appropriate authorities.
“Indicated that he discussed a pending case with a judge trying the case in the absence of an opposing lawyer.”
The petitioners stated that “The contravention of these rules by the Respondent (Farotimi) prompted this petition to protect the dignity of the legal profession, the dignity of the court as the temple of justice and to uphold the standards of the legal profession.”
